Armstrong v. Nicholson Legal Services, 2014 HRTO 128

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Allison Armstrong

Applicant

-and-

Nicholson Legal Services and Glynis Nicholson

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: January 29, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 128 Indexed as: Armstrong v. Nicholson Legal Services

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Allison Armstrong, Applicant Self-represented

Nicholson Legal Services and Glynis Nicholson, Respondents Glynis Nicholson, Representative

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether this Application should be deferred pending the resolution of a civil claim commenced by the applicant.

2By Application dated July 16, 2013, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of marital status and association with a person identified by a ground protected under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”). She also alleged that the respondents reprised against her contrary to the Code. The applicant made two sets of allegations in her Application:

a. She alleged that the personal respondent made abusive comments toward her in faxes on May 10-12, 2013, and that these comments constitute harassment under the Code.

b. She alleged that the personal respondent harassed her contrary to the Code by posting certain comments on her Facebook page.

3By Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 2012, dated December 5, 2013, the Tribunal denied the respondents’ request that the Application be dismissed. However, the Tribunal sought the parties’ submissions as to whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of the civil claim filed by the applicant.

4Both parties have agreed that the Tribunal ought to defer consideration of the Application until the applicant’s civil claim has concluded.

Deferral of application

5Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. The Tribunal has the discretion to defer proceedings before it, and has applied this discretion where there are parallel legal proceedings between the parties.

6In my view, deferral appropriate in this case due to the parties’ consent and also due to the considerable overlap in the factual background to the applicant’s claims in each proceeding. Although the applicant has sought to characterize her claims differently in her Application, most of the claims set out in her Application are also raised in her civil claim against the respondents. Due to this overlap, there is a significant potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings in the two proceedings.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding before the Small Claims Court and any related appeals.

8It should be noted that, where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

Identification of Respondents

9In their letter dated January 13, 2014, the respondents sought clarification as to whether “Nicholson Legal Services” remains a respondent to this Application. In her Application, the applicant named “Glynis Alicia Nicholson carrying on business as Nicholson Legal Services” and Glynis Alicia Nicholson as respondents. At this time, both parties remain named as respondents to this Application.

Delivery of Documents

10In their January 13, 2014 letter, the respondents stated that the applicant had failed to properly deliver to them a copy of her submissions in response to the Tribunal’s Interim Decision.

11The applicant is reminded that she must comply with Rules 1.21-1.23 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure when delivering copies of documents to the respondents and confirming delivery with the Tribunal.

Order

12For the reasons set out above, this Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the Small Claims Court proceeding in this matter and any related appeals.